Whither the Whiter GOP?

In a day-after post-mortem, Richard Krauthammer, one of the leading lights of neoconservatism (tight money supply, red-meat social issues for the basest of the base, and an Uncle Sam that flexes his muscles overseas) wrote a post in the National Review that revealed a whistling-past-the-graveyard mindset. Krauthammer trumpeted that whites (meaning non-Latino Anglos) still make up a majority of the voting population in these here United States.

That might work - if the white vote were monolithic.

It's not.

For starters, take out small percentages for the 75 percent-plus LGBT bloc and Jewish voters who went Democratic pretty much down the ticket. As The New York Times pointed out, LGBT voters alone provided the crucial margin of victory in key battleground states. Despite attempts by the right to paint Barack Obama as anti-Israel, Jews also proved faithful to the party.

Add blocs of union voters and, increasingly, women; millennials, who despise the GOP's anti-gay drum-beating; and, of course, white liberals, and you're left with a very small slice of the white vote - specifically, the old, rural and religious fundamentalists.

The Latino QuestionThe Grand Old Party has never seemed less grand but so old.

The party's pundits and politicians are engaged in a very public bout of soul searching. Having lost black voters, Republicans are looking to the fastest-growing minority, Latinos. But here they are, still arguing about whether making any conciliatory gesture on immigration reform will help or hurt them.

One side argues that Latinos by nature are conservative on social and economic issues and would gravitate to the party if it would abandon an adamantly anti-immigration stance that began in California (which has since seen its Republican base decimated on a unprecedented scale, even in the Northeast) and has spread to the Southwest and South. Build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, they argue. If that doesn't work, build a bigger wall.

Leading these 21st-century No-Nothings are talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, who, ever since the election, have put down Latinos as "Santa Claus" voters who only want to suck at the governmental teat. More Latino voters will only give the Democratic Party more and more power and will eventually overwhelm GOP redoubts like Texas and Arizona, they say.

They point to once-reliable GOP states, such as Florida and New Mexico, that appear to have permanently gone over to the dark side.

Comments

Anonymous, 2013-01-16 10:35:42

A pair of competing parties is essential, but who says the GOP has to be one of them? The religious kooks have done irreparable damage to the once respected and relevant party. Maybe it’s time for a new group of young, forward-thinking, NON-fanatically religious conservatives to take the helm. Get rid of all these tired, old white men and their unrealistic visions for an evolving nation.

Marc , 2013-01-17 00:49:38

The Republican party was dead declared after Clinton wins. The swing voter is the majority and the swing voter swings. Republicans are being weighed down by some social issues, but not all. The pro-life position is more mainstream than the pro-abortion stance, most Americans want some limits on abortion. And Harry Reid’s reticence on gun control is good evidence of the reality of 2nd amendment support. Gays and Mexicans are the real problems for the GOP. And there the party is not in the trouble the Left believes. Most Republican voters are and have already shifted in favor of gay rights and immigration reform. And the anti-gay position is losing in elections, politics is a practical matter. The GOP will not and should shift on economics, the risky dangerous direction Obama is pushing our fiscal situation will hit the fans. And, tax and spend liberalism will be discredited with voters as it has been before and should be again.

Blondie SL, 2013-01-17 12:21:43

In Canada, the provinces basically said to the Fed Gov, that they need to rule on the constitutionality of Same-Sex Marriage. It was the provincial governments’ way of making it easier for each province to adopt it. So finally, the Feds made it clear that no province can discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to marry. In a very short time period, each province changed the laws and now, the entire country is Legal. That’s what the USA needs to do too. How many Federal Supreme Courts in the USA have already said the same thing? That’s it’s unconstitutional to discriminate and that the constitution actually protects same-sex marriage. So each state needs to just get over the hurdles that the religion idiots and anti-gay groups put forth and just get this legalized in every state in the Union. I for one, do not want to move to a state (California) where my marriage to my husband, is not recognized. This weekend, we are celebrating 20 years together. Next July, it will be 5 years legally married. We will NOT allow ANYONE to take that away from us!

Blondie SL, 2013-01-17 13:12:41

In Canada, the provinces basically said to the Fed Gov, that they need to rule on the constitutionality of Same-Sex Marriage. It was the provincial governments’ way of making it easier for each province to adopt it. So finally, the Feds made it clear that no province can discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to marry. In a very short time period, each province changed the laws and now, the entire country is Legal. That’s what the USA needs to do too. How many Federal Supreme Courts in the USA have already said the same thing? That’s it’s unconstitutional to discriminate and that the constitution actually protects same-sex marriage. So each state needs to just get over the hurdles that the religion idiots and anti-gay groups put forth and just get this legalized in every state in the Union. I for one, do not want to move to a state (California) where my marriage to my husband, is not recognized. This weekend, we are celebrating 20 years together. Next July, it will be 5 years legally married. We will NOT allow ANYONE to take that away from us!

russell cluff, 2013-01-17 18:02:12

Amen Jed I’d be all for that party

Wayne Madden, 2013-01-17 21:16:35

Be very careful about writing off the Republican Party. I remember that happening in 1964 (after Goldwater), 1974-76 (after Watergate), and 1992 (after Bush the Elder). Each time the Republicans came back stronger and moved further to the right by appealing more to the Southern White voters, the religious right, social conservatives and (lately) the gun lobby. They know these people get out and vote even if they are a minority. Rather than writing off the Republicans, progressives need to make sure our side gets out and votes.

Anonymous, 2013-01-21 00:01:11

What’s funny, well one thing (of the many) that’s funny with the radical lefty gays, is that they are clueless. Case in point.... The radical left screams racism no matter what the topic. But, if you want to see how "racist" the GOP is, all you need to do is look at history. And you’ll see that the first black US Senator was a Republican -- and that was in 1870. Today, there is only one black guy in the senate -- Tim Scott -- and he’s also a Republican. Plus there are only two Hispanics in the US Senate -- Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz -- both Republicans. (True Bob Menendez is Hispanic and a Senator, but he was appointed, and he’s in the middle of a sex scandal -- so hardly a role model for anyone.) The racism card does not wok anymore. It’s not true, getting tired, and making those that play it look more and more ridiculous.